FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200201700

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. The ISRP strongly supports this proposal, but requests responses to some minor questions. This proposal is to use random site selection based on EPA EMAP procedures to monitor water quality, habitat condition and distribution and abundance of fish. This project would extend the current effort in the John Day and Deschutes into the Umatilla. The budget does not seem unreasonable.

This project is to establish the conditions of stream habitat, water chemistry and biological communities in the John Day, Deschutes and Umatilla subbasins. The work described will provide needed baseline information for salmon recovery. Appropriate sampling design and statistical methods are described, and there is good coordination with other state agencies and with EPA. Data summaries and interpretative reports will complement existing reports on other subbasins.

This is one of the first BPA projects (along with #25088) that the ISRP has reviewed that has probabilistic site selection as a basis for the monitoring. These methods could provide Tier II monitoring as envisioned in the BiOp and 4-H papers (Basinwide Recovery Strategies).

The plan is integrated with the Oregon Plan for Salmon & watersheds (OPSW) monitoring studies by Oregon DEW and ODFW. These methods are probably the best chance for development of subbasin and province wide monitoring efforts if the State of Washington could be brought in.

If access to sites is denied or difficult, how is the site handled in the sample? In the analysis?

Is electrofishing the only method used for assessing the fish community? Should the Hankin and Revees procedures be considered?

Does the project require someone from EPA to help implement the procedure? Or analyze the data? In general, EMAP sites are selected with unequal probability. Is this taken into account during the analysis.

The DEQ web site did not seem to include methods describing the sampling procedures or the analysis procedures. In fact, in the Grande Ronde fish survey report for 1994-99, it does not look like the EMAP sampling procedure was used. Was it?

Comment:

Comment:

The proponents have plans to coordinate sample design and combine data from two projects: Salmonid Habitat and Population Monitoring (Project ID 199801600) and Bull Trout (Project ID 199405400). Council should ensure that all funded projects for monitoring fish and aquatic habitat in Oregon are coordinated under the Oregon Plan for Salmon &Watersheds monitoring. In so far as possible, the Council should also influence projects from the State of Washington to use monitoring procedures that are compatible with the Oregon Plan. The protocols of this project should also be consistent with project 25069 with regard to water quality parameters and measurement methods.

Comment:

Comments
Statistically based baseline data on salmonid habitat in John Day, Umatilla, and Deschutes subbasins. Some of the data that would be collected through this project may exist & recommend that existing data be reviewed to avoid duplicative actions. Although project is coordinated with #199801600, additional coordination needs to occur with #25069 and #25088b. Suggest that funding be delayed until coordination will insure data overlaps will be minimized. Coordination within proposed subbasins among the F&W co-managers should be a pre-requisite for funding this project.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

Comment:

Nevertheless, the EMAP sampling design and the utility of sampling high quality reference sites are desirable to some extent, particularly for a prototype subbasin like the John Day. BPA agrees with the ISRP’s desire to use this project as a model for habitat monitoring. The budget appears reasonable, but no justification is provided for why so many reference sites must be sampled each year in each of the three subbasins to characterize what constitutes high quality habitat. The number seems excessive, particularly in the John Day subbasin where the project sponsor (ODEQ) is already conducting a 4-year EPA-funded EMAP (i.e., representative) study that apparently includes some high quality sample sites. There are other redundancies that must be resolved. Both this proposal and ODFW’s proposal #25088 would collect much of the same data (although variables are not listed in either proposal) in the same subbasins. This proposal needs further review.

Comment:

Budget effect on base program (Project 25010):   

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: